Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context beyond them: the restore is partial in that marketing consents are deliberately not reinstated. It still says nothing about what happens to the contact if it is not in the trash or whether the restore can be undone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the key caveat attached immediately after – no filler. It is arguably slightly too terse given that the sole parameter goes unmentioned, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and one important side effect, but omits the parameter's meaning and any post-restore outcome. It is minimally adequate rather than complete, and the French-only wording amid an English tool surface adds minor ambiguity for matching terminology.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one required parameter and schema description coverage is 0% – the 'id' field has no description in the schema at all. The description never mentions the parameter, so an agent gets no confirmation that it is a contact id (rather than a record or user id) nor any format hints. With a single undocumented param, the description should have compensated and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Restaurer un contact de la corbeille') and adds a precise scope qualifier ('sans rétablir ses consentements'). It implicitly separates the tool from delete_contact_permanently, but never names a sibling or states its inverse relationship explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Mentioning the trash ('corbeille') implies the use case is reversing a soft delete, which is adequate implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over delete_contact_permanently or bulk_contacts, and no stated preconditions (e.g. contact must currently be trashed).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.